DISCUSSION
3.0
Office of the Superintendent of Schools
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Rockville, Maryland
November 8, 2011
MEMORANDUM
To:
Members of the Board of Education
From:
Joshua P. Starr, Superintendent of Schools
Subject:
Curriculum 2.0 Implementation Update
Introduction
In an era of narrowing curriculum, Curriculum 2.0 holds the promise of broadening instruction to
engage the whole child. Ten subject areas at the elementary level––art, health education,
information literacy, mathematics, music, physical education, reading, science, social studies,
and writing––have been refocused around the skills students need for a lifetime of learning.
Three major features outline the promise of Curriculum 2.0:
•
New internationally driven standards in mathematics, reading, and writing
Mathematics, reading, and writing are based on new strengthened standards, also called
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). These standards, adopted by Maryland last
year, describe the content that students must learn at each grade level and are designed to
help U.S. students compete favorably with students around the world.
•
A renewed focus on teaching the whole child
The curriculum provides more instructional focus on subjects such as the arts,
information literacy, physical education, science, and social studies by blending them
with mathematics, reading, and writing. Students will receive instruction across all
subjects in the early grades.
•
Integrated thinking, reasoning, and creativity
The curriculum is designed to do an even better job of teaching Montgomery County
Public Schools (MCPS) students the academic, creative, and critical thinking skills that
build confidence, generate success, and prepare children for a lifetime of learning.
Implementing a powerful initiative during a time of diminishing resources creates several
challenges. The Transition Team Report identified alignment of resources, communication,
ability to support schools, and professional development as challenges to reaching a consistently
Members of the Board of Education
2
November 8, 2011
high level of implementation. This memorandum updates the status of implementation and plans
for expansion, describes staff implementation concerns, outlines steps taken to resolve concerns
so far, summarizes parent feedback, and discusses changes in mathematics.
Background
MCPS’ curriculum frameworks in English and reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and
social studies were approved in 2001, setting a stage for systemwide curriculum reform.
In 2006, frameworks were approved in art, health education, music, and physical education,
following Maryland State Department of Education’s (MSDE) approval of standards in those
areas. In 2007, as part of the curriculum review process, work began to integrate the existing
MCPS curriculum at the elementary level. MCPS responded to research and ongoing
stakeholder feedback, including comments from parents, to design a new model for curriculum
implementation that included the following:
• Creative and critical thinking, as well as academic success skills
• Integrated curriculum to maximize instructional and planning time
• Small group instruction in reading and mathematics
• State curriculum requirements in all content areas
• An all-electronic platform for disseminating curriculum
The Integrated Kindergarten Curriculum was developed in 2008, and was piloted in 90 schools
during the 2009–2010 school year. Last year, the Elementary Integrated Curriculum (EIC) was
voluntarily implemented in Kindergarten and Grade 1. Feedback from teachers, parents, and
administrators was collected and changes were made based on that feedback. The new
integrated model provides teachers with instructional strategies and resources for all content
areas including reading, writing, mathematics, science, social studies, art, music, physical
education, health education, and information literacy. Professional development resources also
are included for all subject areas. The content for all subjects in the EIC is sequenced and
organized to maximize the natural connections among content areas. In addition, during each
marking period, the work in the integrated curriculum is tied together through the study of
critical or creative thinking skills and academic success skills.
In June 2010 MSDE adopted the internationally-driven CCSS in mathematics, reading, and
writing. These standards have been incorporated into the Grades K–2 curriculum and are the
standards for the Grades 3–5 curriculum now under development. The mathematics CCSS are
the most significant change for MCPS, as detailed later in this memorandum. The CCSS in
reading are similar to the previous MCPS goals for elementary reading, though some changes
have been required to create a balance of fiction and nonfiction reading. The CCSS in writing
provide a more detailed development of writing and expands writing well beyond the short
answer responses found on many standardized tests. In the summer of 2010 the EIC was
redesigned to support the CCSS writing standards by treating writing as a content area of its
own––separate from the traditional elementary reading/language arts arrangement. In the setting
of an integrated curriculum this allows students to deepen their writing skills in multiple content
Members of the Board of Education
3
November 8, 2011
areas and for multiple audiences and purposes. In addition, the incorporation of Information
Literacy standards has created a renewed emphasis on writing and researching using 21st Century
literacy skills.
Managing change requires attention to the details of the process, but more importantly, it
requires attention to the individuals involved in the change. MCPS has made significant changes
in curriculum over the last 10 years. Instead of upgrading isolated academic subjects,
EIC integrates thinking and academic success skills across all disciplines. Even positive changes
create uncertainty and confusion. Implementing the new curriculum with a high degree of
fidelity will take time, professional development, and support. As William Bridges noted in
Managing Transitions, “It’s fine to talk about the vision or the big picture, but remember that
most people live at a much more practical level that is full of details. That is the level at which
they are going to either contribute to the change or get in the way of it.” MCPS will spend this
year studying how the upgrades are being implemented, making adjustments based on feedback,
and supporting staff as they deal with the myriad details that comprise our elementary students’
experience.
Status of Implementation and Plans for Expansion
The first marking period for Grade 2 was opened and available to all staff in April 2010, marking
the earliest MCPS has released a major curriculum change before implementation. All marking
periods for Kindergarten and Grade 1 were available earlier due to their use in the pilot years. In
July 2011, MCPS renamed EIC to Curriculum 2.0 and implementation was expanded to include
all Kindergarten and Grade 1 classrooms. Curriculum 2.0 also was available for voluntary
implementation in Grade 2. The 25 elementary schools implementing the electronic report card
were required to implement Curriculum 2.0 in Grade 2 to minimize the number of different types
of report cards at the elementary level. In all, 119 (out of 125) elementary schools are
implementing Curriculum 2.0 in Grade 2.
EIC was changed to Curriculum 2.0 to clearly communicate that MCPS is upgrading its strong
and successful curriculum. Many upgrades are included, such as new internationally driven
standards in mathematics, reading, and writing; a renewed focus on teaching the whole child; and
the integration of thinking, reasoning, and creativity for a lifetime of learning.
Another upgrade for staff members is the development of the Instruction Center (IC) on
myMCPS. This technological innovation contains all curriculum resources organized by week
and marking period for all elementary subject areas K–2. The IC also allows staff members to
upload and share their own materials, ask questions, provide feedback, and evaluate the
usefulness of centrally developed curriculum and professional development resources. The IC is
averaging 4,209 unique users per school week at the K–2 level and 387 users per day on
weekends. This significant technology upgrade also is being used at the secondary level for the
development of all new courses. Staff members in the Office of the Chief Technology Officer
(OCTO) have consistently upgraded the IC based on user feedback and are developing a new
instructional planning tool to aid teachers in their use of the IC.
Members of the Board of Education
4
November 8, 2011
During the last two years, professional development was provided to school leaders through the
monthly Principal Curriculum Update meetings. School-based specialists in areas such as art,
information literacy, music, physical education, reading, mathematics, and staff development
also were provided introductory training during their meetings. Beginning in January 2011,
three Core Team Training sessions were provided to key instructional leaders in each school.
Topics included navigation of the IC; changes in reading, writing, and mathematics due to the
CCSS; collaborative instructional planning; school scheduling for effective planning; integration
of content areas; and integration of thinking and academic success skills. A webinar focused on
navigating and planning instruction was provided for all staff members at the beginning of the
2010–2011 school year and online professional development resources were made available for
all staff members.
Current plans for expansion in the future are focused on rolling out one grade level per school
year—that would mean adding Grade 3 in the 2012–2013 school year. Earlier plans included the
possibility of adding Grades 3–5 in 2012–2013. While Grades 4–5 may be available for limited
testing, school staff capacity and central office staff capacity to support adequate professional
development must be considered before choosing a more aggressive implementation schedule.
Resolving Implementation Concerns
During spring 2011, as elementary schools shared feedback on pilot experiences and prepared for
expanded implementation, three topics were consistently raised as concerns from multiple
stakeholders––communication, professional development, and assessment.
During the 2010–2011 school year, central office staff members met with teacher representatives
from the Councils on Teaching and Learning (CTL) to collect feedback and recommendations
for implementation in 2011–2012. CTL teachers reported they liked having access to the
curriculum before implementation. They appreciated that central office staff members
incorporated their ideas into planning and implementation. Many members valued the high level
of collaboration, two-way communication, and honest responses to their questions. CTL
members also identified areas for improvement, including having specific details about the
rollout, providing the additional time needed to adjust web-based curriculum, striving for
consistency in implementation expectations, and proposing the need for a clear message for
mathematics acceleration. In response to this feedback, the Office of Curriculum and
Instructional Programs (OCIP) drafted a frequently asked questions list to clarify system
messages regarding implementation. CTL members helped identify the questions and provided
additional feedback on draft responses before they were disseminated to all schools. CTL
members also expressed concerns about equal access to technology and instructional materials.
In addition, they underscored the need for common planning time, greater professional
development, and substitute coverage and stipends for additional planning. Many administrators
also shared these concerns with staff members during professional development meetings.
In June, Dr. Frieda K. Lacey, deputy superintendent of schools, convened a cross-functional
team of teachers, school administrators, and central office staff members to help clarify and
resolve the implementation issues. While the team commended the direction and vision of the
Members of the Board of Education
5
November 8, 2011
upgrades and having Grade 2, Marking Period 1 ready well in advance, team members expressed
concerns about timely and consistent communication with staff members and parents. Team
members praised the multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate understanding on
assessments, valued Sample Learning Tasks that specifically aligned with curriculum indicators,
and supported the focus on deeper understanding without lengthy unit assessments, but
questioned how MCPS would be able to consistently monitor instruction during the transition to
CCSS mathematics standards. Team members also supported the professional development
vision (outlined in greater depth later in this paper) and liked the availability of online
professional development resources, but expressed concerns about staff capacity to fully
understand these changes and implement them without additional professional development.
Staff members in OCIP, OCTO, the Office of Communications, the Office of Shared
Accountability, and the Office of School Performance triangulated the feedback from the
Montgomery County Council of Parent Teacher Associations (MCCPTA) Curriculum
Committee; the Curriculum Advisory Assembly (CAA); CTL; the cross-functional team;
employee organization leaders; and informal feedback from parents, teachers, and school leaders
to address the key areas of concern––communication, assessment, and professional development.
Communication
To address the concern regarding clarity of system messages, a communication campaign was
developed to reach all stakeholders. Schools distributed a letter and flyer to families, describing
the major upgrades to the curriculum. A new website was created for Curriculum 2.0 and
included frequently asked questions, parent guides, videos, and descriptive information about the
philosophy and related research. Schools were provided videos and PowerPoint presentations to
use at their Back-to-School Nights and other events related to the curriculum. The
communication materials articulated the most important points about Curriculum 2.0, CCSS,
mathematics, and grading and reporting. Teachers also received a set of posters for display that
identify the thinking and academic success skills in student-friendly language. When materials
are posted, translated print materials also are available in the five most frequently spoken
languages in MCPS (Spanish, Chinese, French, Vietnamese, and Korean). The Department of
Family and Community Partnerships (DFCP) and OCIP are collaborating to host eight parent
academy nights that provide detailed explanations about the upgrades included in Curriculum
2.0. Future plans for the IC includes creating a parent portal to the IC for families and students.
Assessment
With the transition to Curriculum 2.0, MCPS is moving away from the idea of assessment as an
event and moving toward a vision of assessment as an ongoing part of instruction. However,
part of this vision is dependent on the benchmark and state assessments still under development
outside MCPS. The assessment system MCPS uses at the primary level for reading is well
aligned to the CCSS and is continuing in Curriculum 2.0. In mathematics, the unit assessments,
which form much of the data basis for individual, group, and systems decisions, were found to be
too far out of alignment with the CCSS to continue their use. To help teachers measure student
Members of the Board of Education
6
November 8, 2011
progress toward the CCSS goals, formative assessment items were realigned with new standards
and indicators and were provided for each marking period in K–2. MCPS also is investigating
use of a nationally normed assessment to serve as a benchmark for student growth. These
assessments, along with ongoing formative assessments and checks for understanding, would
provide data for instructional use, system monitoring, and reporting to parents. This school year,
schools may pilot Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress–Primary
Grades (MAP-P) assessment on a voluntary basis. MAP-P, like its cousin the Measures of
Academic Progress–Reading (MAP-R), is a computer-adaptive assessment that is administered
two to three times per year. MAP-R has been in use in MCPS Grades 3–8 since 2004. MAP-P is
designed to measure student understanding of mathematics in K–2. A small number of schools
also are piloting Measures of Academic Progress–Mathematics (MAP-M), a similar assessment
of mathematics designed for Grades 3–5. MCPS is collecting feedback on administration of
these assessments and will analyze results to make recommendations for future use this school
year.
MCPS also is closely monitoring developments at the state and national level as assessments are
developed to measure the CCSS. Maryland is a member of the Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), a consortium of states designing the assessments.
Early projections that these new assessments would have multiple assessments throughout the
year are being scaled back. Current information from MSDE indicates that some PARCC test
items will be included on state assessments in 2012–2013 and 2013–2014, and that in 2014–2015
the first full PARCC assessments would replace the Maryland School Assessment. Kindergarten
students currently experiencing Curriculum 2.0 will be in Grade 3, the earliest grade level
assessed by MSDE, in 2014–2015.
During the transition to new assessments, teachers and administrators have expressed concerns
about measuring mathematics aligned to the new standards. The CCSS suggest that ongoing
formative assessments and informal collection of data concerning student progress is preferable
to a system composed solely of summative assessments. With Curriculum 2.0, MCPS has
embraced this vision of ongoing formative assessment as the most effective way to use
assessment to help build a strong foundation of understanding. Curriculum 2.0 contains
mathematics formative assessment items organized by marking periods and grouped by
measurement topics. These formative assessment items also contain rubrics that show how to
measure to the depth expected in the strands of mathematical proficiency––Understanding,
Computing, Applying, Reasoning, and Engaging. These formative assessment items serve as
useful benchmarks and models for assessment, but teachers have expressed concerns that they
are not sufficient to collect ongoing data to thoroughly assess a student. Curriculum 2.0 also
contains Checks for Understanding within each Sample Learning Task aligned to specific
indicators to help with ongoing formative assessment. In response to concerns expressed by
members of the cross-functional team, data collection tools were created to help teachers track
student progress on measurement topics. These tools are in alignment with tools being used by
schools implementing the electronic standards-based report card.
Members of the Board of Education
7
November 8, 2011
Through its partnership with Pearson, MCPS also will have access to the first assessments that
measure student thinking and academic success skills. These performance-based assessments
will be part of a student’s educational experience in a content area, not a typical paper-pencil
assessment. MCPS kindergarten teachers will have the opportunity to pilot these assessments on
a limited voluntary basis in 2012–2013. As MCPS selects a benchmark assessment and new
state measures are put in place, professional development will be necessary on the effective use
of assessment in building student understanding.
Professional Development
A widely shared concern has been the need for systemic and systematic professional
development regarding the many aspects of Curriculum 2.0. The professional development
vision for Curriculum 2.0 shared with the cross-functional team and in subsequent messages to
principals includes the development of key messages for all staff members, a focus on jobembedded collaborative professional development supported through building capacity of
instructional leadership and individual staff members through self-directed learning.
Several decades of research suggest that the most effective form of professional development is
job-embedded collaborative planning for instruction. To this end, Core Team Training sessions
have focused on using the resources in the IC to collaboratively plan for effective instruction.
For teachers to effectively participate in collaborative instructional planning they may use the
self-directed learning opportunities included in the IC. These opportunities include short videos,
interactive presentations, graphics, and written information to help teachers understand
curriculum goals, content, and expectations. Although MCPS has embraced the collaborative
planning model for many years, building instructional leaders will need to expand their capacity
to facilitate collaborative planning and arrange schedules to maximize teacher common planning
time. Teachers and building leaders indicate that availability of time to plan and learn the new
system has been the most significant impediment to implementing the curriculum upgrades.
Budget reductions over the last few years have constricted the substitute time needed for teachers
to learn and begin planning in an effective collaborative manner. Reductions to the staff
Members of the Board of Education
8
November 8, 2011
development teacher position have limited the key personnel necessary to facilitate this change
in some schools. The funds received from the MCPS partnership with Pearson have provided
some support—Pearson funds are being used to provide implementing teachers with 1.5 days of
substitute or stipend hours for collaborative planning. Budget priorities this year will need to
consider additional support for professional development related to Curriculum 2.0.
Parent Feedback
Parent feedback shaped the development of Curriculum 2.0 since its inception as the Integrated
Kindergarten Curriculum. Early feedback included the need to include subject areas such as
science and social studies while maintaining a strong focus on reading and mathematics. During
the 2010–2011 school year, meetings were held in schools piloting the curriculum and through
CAA and MCCPTA to share the vision and rollout plan. Feedback about the general direction
was positive and supportive, applauding the addition of thinking and academic success skills and
the renewed emphasis on teaching the whole child. In these meetings, parents also expressed
concern regarding changes in mathematics due to adoption of CCSS.
As part of the 2011–2012 communication plan, DFCP and OCIP are hosting eight parent
academies dedicated to sharing detailed information about Curriculum 2.0 as well as to obtain
feedback from parents. OCIP staff members also are collecting anecdotal feedback via principals
after they have hosted local back-to-school or curriculum nights. Overall, most parents say they
are pleased with upgrades to the curriculum. Parents support the integration of academic and
critical and creative thinking skills across subjects and the deeper teaching with appropriate
connections across content areas. At the same time, parents had questions about differentiation
and enrichment in mathematics. Many parents applauded the effort to “dig deeper and build a
stronger foundation in mathematics” and support MCPS’ efforts to emphasize depth of
understanding over speed of acquisition. Some parents of students previously advanced a grade
level in Kindergarten or Grade 1 expressed concern that CCSS in Grade 1 and Grade 2 are not
sufficiently challenging and that teachers have not been provided adequate professional
development on differentiation. Others have expressed skepticism that small group differentiated
instruction would work with mathematics despite MCPS’ successful track record using this
model with reading.
Mathematics Learning Progressions
Staff members analyzed CCSS upon their release in June 2010, and found they provide a deeper
and more rigorous approach to mathematics at every grade level compared to the Maryland State
Curriculum standards. In the 2001 curriculum, MCPS had to provide pathways for acceleration
through the Maryland standards to reach a sufficient level of rigor at each grade. As detailed in
the Mathematics Work Group Report this practice of acceleration to reach rigor led to some
students skipping essential mathematics understandings. CCSS reach rigor through depth of
understanding rather than acceleration. This means most students will no longer need to skip or
advance a grade level in mathematics in order to access engaging and challenging curriculum.
Members of the Board of Education
9
November 8, 2011
However, as staff members analyzed CCSS at each grade level and reviewed existing student
performance, they felt that CCSS alone would not challenge every child sufficiently. MCPS
researched best practices in mathematics acceleration and consulted with CCSS authors to
develop a model of acceleration and enrichment through CCSS within a grade level. Developed
over the last year and put in place for the first time in August 2011, the model of acceleration and
enrichment provides teachers with directions on how to accelerate or enrich a student who has
shown deep mastery of a concept or topic. This model is based on learning progressions, or a
careful sequencing of the building blocks that make up deep student understanding. By mapping
out these building blocks, as MCPS has, teachers can easily determine the next logical
enrichment or acceleration experience for a student. Since learning progressions are at the
foundation of CCSS, this model shows promise for challenging each child in a way that will not
develop “holes” in their understanding as skipping or grade-level advancement may. MCPS is
committed to challenging every child and anticipates even with this additional acceleration and
enrichment, a very small number of students may still need to advance a grade level in
mathematics in order to receive sufficient challenge.
The learning progressions, combined with the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) architecture
of Curriculum 2.0, also will serve students who are struggling in mathematics. By moving down
the learning progression in the opposite direction, teachers will be able to determine the building
blocks a struggling student may be missing to reach grade-level proficiency. Close study of this
model will be necessary as teachers and students work to implement Curriculum 2.0 over the
next few years.
Next Steps
Grade 3 curriculum is in development with the first marking period expected to be available in
January 2012. However, there are a number of key next steps that must be completed to ensure
support for implementation.
1. Continue ongoing collection of feedback from instructional staff and parents.
2. Continue to identify major issues through feedback, seek resolutions, and communicate
frequently about issues.
3. Collect data on MAP-P and MAP-M pilots and analyze results to make a
recommendation for benchmark assessments in mathematics.
4. Review i3 grant evaluation early feedback regarding implementation to make adjustments
based on feedback.
5. Design and implement plans to expand staff participation in uploading and reviewing
resources and providing feedback options in the IC.
6. Continue Core Team Training and Staff Development Teacher, Principal Curriculum
Update, and subject area specialist meetings focused on Curriculum 2.0. Use feedback
from sessions as a data point to help determine needs for next year.
7. Finalize implementation and professional development plans for the 2012–2013 school
year.
Members of the Board of Education
10
November 8, 2011
Conclusion
Although there are challenges associated with implementing Curriculum 2.0, the breadth and
vision of this initiative avoids a piecemeal approach in dealing with state curriculum mandates
and budget reductions. The implementation of the CCSS and PARCC assessments without
Curriculum 2.0 would further narrow instructional focus to only reading/language arts and
mathematics at the elementary level. Instead of sidelining the subjects so many students find
engaging, Curriculum 2.0 embraces the strengths of art, music, physical education, information
literacy, health education, science, and social studies. In developing thinking and academic
success skills across many subject areas, MCPS positions its students to be well prepared for
future assessment changes and a lifetime of learning.
In Managing Transitions, William Bridges cautioned that a lofty vision only can be achieved by
attending to the myriad of details that comprise the vision. As instructional staff, parents, and
students transition to Curriculum 2.0 over the next several years, MCPS leadership is committed
to carefully handling the large and small details that make up the greater vision. Ongoing
feedback from parents and staff, and resolution of identified issues, will be essential to building
the trust and commitment that will deliver the promise of Curriculum 2.0.
At the table for today’s presentation is a panel of central office and school staff members to
answer your questions.
JPS:at